Fish Tumors and Deformities (BUI #3) Preliminary Workgroup Meeting

Thursday, February 12, 2004
10:00 am - 12:00 pm
DeWitt-Seitz 3rd floor conference room

Attending: Bethel Anderson, Brian Fredrickson, J. Howard McCormick, Kay McKenzie, Nan Stokes

• review of contents of folder
- Calendar/timeline: September 2004 forward restoration goals to EPA.
- Goals of RAP
- Historical Background
- Development of the St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
- Problems in the St. Louis River AOC Identified in the Stage I RAP
- Map: Shows AOC and some selected sites within it. AOC includes the Nemadji, Cities of Superior, Duluth, Cloquet, and the nearshore waters of Lake Superior.
- Restoration Goals and Milestones worksheet: This is what we will be submitting to EPA.
- BUI Rational for Removing from the Impairment List: This is what we are continueing to develop tonight.
- Workgroup Meeting Schedule
- Agenda
- General Guidelines for Restoration Goal Development
* Might recognize deficiencies in BUIs but won't be editing them.
* Advisory in nature.

• IJC Criteria: An impairment will be listed when incidence rates of fish tumors or other deformities exceed rates at unimpacted control sites or when survey data confirm the presence of neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumors in bullheads or suckers.

• SLR RAP Rational for Listing: Observations suggest that fish tumors and deformities represent an impaired use in the St. Louis River estuary. However, at present, there are no studies that document the incidence rates of tumors in fish. Additional work is needed to fully determine the incidence of fish tumors and deformities in the Area of Concern.

* Need some studies/documents on this subject.
- 1993 Envirovet study - summer, white suckers, Apostle Islands vs. St. Louis River Harbor, Univ. of Illonois
- 1993 Riverwatch study by Nan Stokes
- 1995 Crawford Creek
- 1991 unpublished study on Toxic Tuesday - Allouez Bay, Mary Ann Kroft.
- LSRI reports? Mary Balcer?
- SWWTP documents? Diane Brooke a good resource?
- Who did histologies on all these studies?
- Kay will try to dig up the WI documents: 1991 study, 1995 study, LSRI, SWWTP.
- Nan will send copy of 1993 Riverwatch study.
- Howard will talk to John Lindgren.

* St. Paul fish advisories don't have much info on St. Louis River.
- Health Dept., DNR, PCA
- They are in charge of collecting fish and deciding where to sample.
- Send info to (Bruce? name?) (Brian said a name and couldn't catch.)
- Public Health advisories deal with fish consumption advisories (BUI #1) not fish tumors.

* IJC criteria
- suckers, bullheads are bottom feeders
- walleyes are basis of SLR fishery
- other deformities: lumphocystis = red abrasions, viral response to water conditions; livers are ok, skin is affected
- Nan will talk to John Brazner, EPA about past and present info.
- Brian Fredrickson can scan in hardcopies of data to get electronic copies to everyone.
- Judy Crane may have some info for us. No histologies but has contaminated sediment/hotspot evaluations.

* Is the rationale for removing from the list covered?
- No, need to look at studies before can remove from list.
- Mary Ann Kroft and Diane Brooke were part of Stage I recommendations.
- Used Chequamegon Bay as a control site for RAP report. Not necessarily good idea.
- North Bay could potentially be a good control site. Pokegama Bay is not a good control site.
- No rationale for removing from list at this time.
- Have to worry about other tumors not just liver.

* Restoration Goal:
- Rationale for delisting is when situation in the estuary does not significantly differ from the control site, North Bay, we will consider it no longer a problem.
- Rationale: relative degree of impairment.
- North Bay is ok control site because upstream of Superfund sites. It is downstream of Cloquet though.
- Want a control site from above Cloquet as well.
- Find the degree of tumors and deformities in bullheads and suckers to be no more severe than in the control site, North Bay.

* Suckers migrate from Lake Superior into the river. Bullheads don't move as much.

* Winter fish
- Stay out of currents so don't use too much energy.
- They try to find deep areas that have enough flow to rejuvinate oxygen supply.
- Deep areas are warmer (~39 degrees in winter).
- Allouez Bay has an artificially dug hole that would be a good spot to find fish in the winter.
- Channel is deep but has faster flowing water.

* Control site:
- North Bay is best control site we've found on lower St. Louis River because it is upstream of Superfund sites. However, it is downstream of Cloquet.
- Want a control site from above Cloquet as well.
- NRDT trustees used North Bay as a control site when doing a study on SLRIDT site and Keene Creek/Slip 7. FWS preliminary report done by Annette Trowbridge: Stryker Bay (SLRIDT) found liver tumors. Keene Creek/Slip 7 found liver and skin lesions. North Bay found no liver or skin lesions. Not a final report yet.
- More than one control site would be best.
- Add to Restoration Goal above: It would be nice to have additional control sites upstream from Cloquet. To find the tumors and deformities in bullheads and suckers to be no more severe than in the control sites, including sites upstream of Cloquet.

* Other AOCs
- Severn Sound - Delisting Objective: To maintain the low incidence of tumors and other deformities.
- Grand Calumet - Delisting Guideline: When the incidence rates of fish tumors or other deformities do not exceed rates at unimpacted control sites and when survey data confirm the absence of neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumors in bullheads or suckers.
- Collingwood Harbour - Former Area of Concern Restoration Target for Delisting: Compliance with all existing and future provincial, federal and IJC biological tissue standards for objectives, or value no different from those in Georgian Bay and local sources not the cause. No reproductive deformities in sentinel species.

* Who did histologies?
* What did they use as control sites?
* Bethel will talk to Larry Brooke(?) to see if he has some data on suckers that he would give to us.

* Need to add in something about walleyes to goal.
- People don't eat suckers and bullheads. They eat walleyes.
- Have to indicate walleyes as a problem fish to generate public interest.
- But we're not worried about specific fish species, we're worried about the pollution.
- Fish species of bullheads/suckers are indicator species because they are bottom dwellers.
- Use fish in wording not specifically bullheads and suckers.
- Restoration Goal: To find the tumors and deformities in fish to be no more severe than in the control sites, including sites upstream of Cloquet.

* Should additional studies be in the restoration goal?
- Yes, we seem to have conflicting data and only some info on specific sites.
- Need to look to future.
- Randomized, stratified sampling needs to occur. Randomized: random sites. Stratified: include sites we think may be contaminated both open water and bays.
- Need money for studies. Need evidence to go one way or other on delisting.
- Seem to have quite a few studies from right at time of RAP and none since.
- Nan Stokes might be helpful in designing a study along with John Lindgren, Dennis Pratt, and Howard McCormick.
- Study should be milestone toward goal.
- Milestone: Stratified, randomized sampling to identify condition of fish.

* Identify presence or absence of lesions or tumors? Or abundance of lesions/tumors?
- NY study was counting every little lesion as toxic. Redefined to discount most of small lesions that could have occurred from propeller blades, etc.
- Envirovet study looked at low red blood cell count (anemia) went beyond outside visible condition of fish. We want both external/internal.
- Change condition of fish to be pathology.
- Milestone: Stratified, randomized sampling to identify pathology of fish (e.g. deformities, tumors, disease).

* Timeline for studies?
- 2-3 years post-funding for timeline?
- Receive funding and 3 years after that receive a published, peer reviewed report. Takes 2 years to collect data and 1 year to write up and publish report.
- Global warming does affect fish. Not lots of new variables. Just different ones.
- We collect fish for consumption advisories. Maybe could use those fish for milestone study? Not equipped for histologies, although two crews could work together maybe.
- Angela (name?), MPCA St. Paul office should get this info.
- WI was using FDA standards for a while. MN was using a more restrictive guideline. Would be nice if both states had same standards.

* Contaminated sites:
- Stratas should include contaminated sites rather than just saying randomized stratification.
- Contamination isn't uniform so have to include some hotspot sites.
- Choose the strata then sample randomly within stratas.
- Milestone: Stratified, randomized sampling to identify pathology of fish (e.g. deformities, tumors, disease). Stratas to include sites of varying degrees of contamination.

* One milestone enough for our restoration goal?
- is P < 0.05 (95% significance level) ok? Yes. Maybe < 0.10 (90%) would be more realistic.
- Need to redo similar report on regular interval maybe every 5-10 years.
- This is a RAP goal to continuously monitor. Should reiterate it though.
- Intermittent? Regular? 5 year intervals or 10 year unless otherwise indicated?
- Minimum 5 year interval, max of 10 year interval.
- Milestone: Stratified, randomized sampling to identify pathology of fish (e.g. deformities, tumors, disease). Stratas to include sites of varying degrees of contamination. Continued monitoring through similar studies on a regular schedule (Minimum 5 year interval. Maximum 10 year interval).

* Date of next meeting
- Can't set up a meeting till we have studies from people.
- One week after studies are received at CAC office, will hold next meeting.